European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 7 of 92 · 2,185 total
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH & Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of patent infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim for revocation pending a final decision by the European Patent Office in parallel appeal proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 651 429. The patent, relating to a vehicle communication network, had been revoked by the EPO Opposition Division on 9 July 2026, and the Claimant had filed an appeal on 4 August 2026. The court weighed the Claimant's right to a timely hearing against the need to avoid conflicts between UPC infringement measures and the EPO's revocation decision.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant, Niche Biomedical, sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% due to the case's complexity. The court held that the applicant had not made an explicit and clear request to raise the recoverable costs ceiling under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023, and that a mere request for interim cost reimbursement in a specified amount does not constitute such a request. The court set the recoverable costs at EUR 112,000.00, corresponding to the applicable ceiling for a dispute value of EUR 1,000,000.00.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Dolby and Vectis's applications for a stay and suspensive effect of first-instance proceedings pending their appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in Dolby's infringement action against Acer and declared Acer's FRAND rate-setting counterclaim against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, concluded the impugned order was not manifestly erroneous, and held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the lower court had not ruled on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. Dolby had brought an infringement action against Acer entities concerning European patent EP 3 079 153, and Vectis (administrator of the patent pool containing the patent) intervened. Acer filed counterclaims for revocation and FRAND rate-setting against both Dolby and Vectis. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay of the first-instance proceedings, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting suspensive effect, and additionally declared Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 726 883. QIAGEN Sciences had filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation were withdrawn by mutual consent. The court allowed the withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both the claimant and the defendants.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Dolby and Vectis for suspensive effect (stay) of first instance proceedings pending their appeal. The underlying dispute concerned an order of the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in support of Dolby and declared Acer's counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay and additionally held Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order contained no ruling adversely affecting Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
This Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal order concerns an application by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) for leave to appeal against a cost decision and for suspensive effect. AMMS's patent EP 3 854 403 had been revoked by the Central Division Milan, which ordered AMMS to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs. AMMS argued that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to the cost decision. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA was an unresolved question, but rejected the application for suspensive effect for lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following an inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm it. The court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and directed that only a redacted version be entered in the register.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Julius Blum GmbH v.Arturo Salice S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438, which relates to a furniture hinge. The plaintiff Julius Blum GmbH alleges infringement of claims 1-5 and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant Arturo Salice S.p.A. has filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the dispute, cost settlement, further written submissions, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned cross-appeals regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed the infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
Kodak Holding GmbH & Others v.Fujifilm Corporation
This case concerns enforcement proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, where Kodak appealed penalty orders imposed by the Mannheim Local Division for alleged non-compliance with an injunction in patent infringement proceedings brought by Fujifilm. Following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision on the merits setting aside the Mannheim Local Division's decision and finding that Kodak did not infringe the patent due to a private prior use right, the Court of Appeal held that the revocation of the underlying decision had retroactive effect, removing the legal basis for the penalty orders. The Court set aside the impugned orders, set the value of the enforcement proceedings at one million Euro, ordered Fujifilm to bear Kodak's legal costs, and ordered the refund of penalty payments already made.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of cross-appeals in a patent dispute involving EP 2 642 632. The Local Chamber Hamburg had previously dismissed the infringement claim and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, and Others
Bostik, Inc. filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Henkel entities, alleging that Henkel's Loctite® Liofol cold-sealable adhesive products infringed European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court declared the patent invalid in its entirety (including the amended form under auxiliary request AR1) on the ground of added matter, finding that Claim 1 as granted constituted an intermediate generalization beyond the original application disclosure.
Biopsafe ApS v.Kaltek S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for security for costs filed by the defendant Kaltek S.r.l. in patent infringement proceedings brought by Biopsafe ApS before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Kaltek argued that Biopsafe's financial position, characterized by low share capital, microenterprise status, aggressive dividend distribution, and near-zero liquidity, raised a legitimate concern that any costs award would be unrecoverable. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Kaltek had not met its burden of proof, particularly given Biopsafe's recent acquisition by Medcap for approximately EUR 15.38 million and its demonstrated growth in profits and assets.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc. & Samsung Electronics
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2047617. Following an agreement between the parties, the judge-rapporteur confirmed the alignment of deadlines for all defendants to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation by 26 October 2026. The order also confirmed that Dr. Ebersohl would represent Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) in addition to the Samsung defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé seeking a stay of proceedings and a declination of jurisdiction in favour of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris. The court held that Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation (lis pendens) did not apply because the UPC infringement action and the Paris TJ revocation/non-infringement action did not share the same cause of action. While the cases were 'related' under Article 30, the court declined to stay proceedings because the UPC decision would likely be rendered before the Paris TJ decision, and a stay would unduly delay the UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the Judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order sets procedural directions, including the value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), scheduling oral hearings on 9-11 September 2026, and identifying the main legal points relating to claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and interim measures.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the value of the infringement action at 5 million euros and the counterclaim for revocation at 5 million euros, totaling 10 million euros. It also establishes the procedural framework for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 9-11 September 2026, covering claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and an interim award.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG & Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a review application filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the judge-rapporteur on 22 June 2026 in proceedings involving EP 1 955 151. CA challenged the order on the ground that Telekom had only submitted an excerpt (Annex B5) of a larger document in unredacted form, arguing that Rule 262A.3 RoP required disclosure of the entire underlying document. The court rejected the review application, holding that an excerpt can constitute an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3 RoP and that there is no right to access the entire source document.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (OPPO Group)
This order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerns a dispute over the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action involving EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo (the defendants collectively) sought to add two former in-house employees to the confidentiality club to access license materials, while KPN objected and requested a licensing bar. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the club beyond the existing members, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf confidentiality regime, and deferred the licensing bar question pending clarification from KPN.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of service dates and deadlines for filing statements of defence in a patent infringement action brought by Cardo Systems against two defendants, Ziwu and Resosport. The judge-rapporteur had ordered a notional common starting date of 10 June 2026 for all defendants, with statements of defence due by 10 September 2026. Cardo sought review of this order, arguing it granted the defendants a de facto 50-day extension inconsistent with the UPC's objectives of speed and efficiency. The Panel dismissed Cardo's application, finding the order constituted a balanced compromise that provided certainty and orderly management of the proceedings.